Samp­son Nan­ton

The Gov­ern­ment’s at­tempt to pass leg­is­la­tion to turn the re­gion­al cor­po­ra­tions of Siparia and Diego Mar­tin in­to bor­oughs was met with re­sis­tance from Op­po­si­tion Mem­bers of Par­lia­ment in the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives yes­ter­day.

Two Op­po­si­tion MPs de­scribed the move as cos­met­ic.

Speak­ing im­me­di­ate­ly af­ter Min­is­ter of Rur­al De­vel­op­ment and Lo­cal Gov­ern­ment Faris Al-Rawi pi­lot­ed the bill, Op­po­si­tion St Au­gus­tine MP Khadi­ja Ameen ar­gued that the leg­is­la­tion was “a su­per­fi­cial at­tempt to pre­tend to do some­thing about lo­cal gov­ern­ment.”

She com­plained that the min­is­ter gave no clear rea­son why these two cor­po­ra­tions were se­lect­ed to be­come bor­oughs.

“What was your ap­proach in terms of your method­olog­i­cal frame­work that was utilised? What de­vel­op­men­tal stud­ies and guide­lines were utilised to make this de­ci­sion? What con­sul­ta­tions were con­duct­ed? The an­swer is none,” Ameen said.

Ameen, a for­mer Tu­na­puna Pi­ar­co Re­gion­al Cor­po­ra­tion chair­man, ar­gued that there need­ed to be clear­ly out­lined ob­jec­tives to en­sure the el­e­va­tion of the two cor­po­ra­tions to bor­oughs tied in­to the na­tion­al agen­da for de­vel­op­ment and eco­nom­ic growth.

“Madame Speak­er, the min­is­ter failed to in­di­cate to us how the change in sta­tus, from tak­ing an eras­er and rub­bing off the name re­gion­al, re­place it with the name bor­ough...to tell us how that would bring about greater eco­nom­ic, hu­man and in­fra­struc­tur­al de­vel­op­ment in Siparia and Diego Mar­tin,” she said.

Ameen told the House that, for ex­am­ple, Al-Rawi should have ex­plained how the Gov­ern­ment will seek to de­vel­op the pop­u­lar cel­e­bra­tion of Si­pa­ree Mai in Siparia to help grow the econ­o­my.

“This is some­thing that...Siparia be­comes a mec­ca, so to speak, around that time and it is unique fes­ti­vals like these that you can build around when you speak about im­prov­ing an area from be­ing a re­gion­al cor­po­ra­tion to a bor­ough, be­cause you are now speak­ing about cre­at­ing a space that could host a na­tion­al fes­ti­val; you are speak­ing about cre­at­ing lo­cal tourism and what is re­quired to im­prove that area, to fa­cil­i­tate such if you’re talk­ing about tourism, and it ties in of course to the gov­ern­ment’s tourism agen­da,” she said.

She asked the Gov­ern­ment to say what re­sources would be pro­vid­ed to im­prove the roads to Sparia, for ex­am­ple, in keep­ing with the aim to el­e­vate its sta­tus to a bor­ough.

Ameen said the Gov­ern­ment was “putting the cart be­fore the horse” by not de­vel­op­ing the cor­po­ra­tions be­fore seek­ing to give them bor­ough sta­tus.

She al­so crit­i­cised the Gov­ern­ment for not in­creas­ing re­sources to the cor­po­ra­tions in keep­ing with more re­spon­si­bil­i­ties un­der them when they be­come bor­oughs.

Ameen said the gov­ern­ment should ei­ther with­draw the bill en­tire­ly or send it to a Joint Se­lect Com­mit­tee where ex­perts could be called in to as­sist in re­fin­ing the leg­is­la­tion.

“The in­ten­tions may be good but this is un­ac­cept­able,” she said.

Op­po­si­tion Ch­agua­nas East MP Van­dana Mo­hit, a for­mer may­or of Ch­agua­nas, echoed Ameen’s con­cerns, telling the House that while the bill seeks to change the sta­tus of the cor­po­ra­tions, it of­fers noth­ing to im­prove the lives of the peo­ple of Siparia and Diego Mar­tin.

“We heard a lot of fluff but no sub­stance,” Mo­hit said, adding that when the cor­po­ra­tions be­come bor­oughs, they will con­tin­ue to be faced with flood­ing, bad roads and poor wa­ter sup­ply.

Gov­ern­ment MP for Diego Mar­tin Cen­tral, Symon De No­bri­ga, who spoke in-be­tween the two, said he was “be­wil­dered” the bill was even be­ing de­bat­ed, as he felt the Op­po­si­tion would have sig­nalled this as “an his­toric day” in the de­vel­op­ment of Siparia and Diego Mar­tin.

De No­bri­ga, a for­mer Diego Mar­tin Re­gion­al Cor­po­ra­tion chair­man, said the sta­tus el­e­va­tion was a “tan­gi­ble demon­stra­tion” of the Gov­ern­ment’s com­mit­ment to lo­cal gov­ern­ment. He de­fend­ed the Gov­ern­ment’s de­ci­sion to make the move at this time.

“El­e­va­tion to bor­ough sta­tus, as it hap­pens in par­al­lel to lo­cal gov­ern­ment re­form, brings a myr­i­ad of growth op­por­tu­ni­ties to both the burgess­es of Diego Mar­tin and the burgess­es of Siparia,” he said.

Ari­ma MP Pene­lope Beck­les ar­gued that it was not cor­rect to say the Gov­ern­ment did not hold con­sul­ta­tions on the mat­ter. She said over the years there were many white and green pa­pers on it.

“What is clear is that these dis­cus­sions have been go­ing on for some time,” she said.

Beck­les said ex­pec­ta­tions of greater de­liv­ery through the el­e­va­tion of these cor­po­ra­tions to bor­oughs must be tak­en in the con­text of how this fits in­to lo­cal gov­ern­ment re­form.

Beck­les’ con­tri­bu­tion was cut short, how­ev­er, as Leader of Gov­ern­ment Busi­ness in the House, Camille Robin­son-Reg­is, moved that de­bate on the mat­ter be ad­journed to an­oth­er sit­ting.